Al Reguel Ajat

Since the times of Ezra and Nehemia, the rabbis commented and discussed the Torah, and the Tanach in general, orally, without writing it down, although some took notes in private, as in the case of the rulings of the rabbinical courts. At the time of the Roman conquest of the Kingdom of Judah, a great number of halachic norms were produced, which made it difficult to maintain the oral system, so the words of the sages began to be written down.

According to the epistle of Rav Sherira Gaon, the great upheaval that followed the destruction of the Temple and the uprising of Bar Kochba, put that set of norms known as the Oral Torah in danger of being lost, because there were no longer the conditions to transmit them orally from teacher to student, given the restrictive policies of the Romans. Therefore, Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi made the decision to compile them and put them in writing. This is how the Mishnah was born.

The Mishnah is the collection of those laws and oral traditions that already existed. The rabbis who contributed to its formation are known as Tanaim, of whom we have information about approximately 120. The period during which the Mishnah was compiled lasted about 130 years and spanned five generations. It even included many conflicting commentaries that arose between the different academies (yeshivot), such as those of Hillel and Shammai.

In the year 220 CE, the Mishnah was edited and published. In the following four centuries, the Mishnah was analyzed and debated in the yeshivot of the two most important Jewish communities of the time: that of Eretz Israel and that of Babylon. These commentaries, known as Gemara, were in turn edited and published in each place and together with the original Mishnah, produced, in one case the Talmud Yerushalmi, made in Israel and in the other the Talmud Babli, made in Babylon. The Yerushalmi was finished a century earlier, mostly because of the religious persecution that the Romans launched in Eretz Israel against the rabbis and their academies. In both places, dozens of rabbis, known as Amoraim, over eight generations, contributed to the formation of the Talmud.

Orthodox Rabbi Aaron Parry, in his book The Talmud, tells us: “Almost everyone is familiar with the story of how Moses received the Ten Commandments from God, but what is less known about this story is that Moses and God had a good talk on that mountain and that it covered much more than could be inscribed on the Tablets that he brought with him when he came down. It is this information, the Oral Torah, which was transmitted orally from God to Moses and then from Moses to the generations that followed him, that is the basis for the Talmud.”

This must be understood more metaphorically than literally. The foundation of Judaism is definitely the Torah that Moses received at Sinai, but the building that was built on top of it is due to the work of many sages. The Talmud was written by many with the inspiration of One.

By Marcos Gojman

Bibliography: Joseph Telushkin “Jewish Literacy” and others.

It is written in the first verse of the tractate Pirkei Avot (Chapters of the Fathers): “Moses received the Torah on Mount Sinai and transmitted it to Yehoshua. He transmitted it to the elders of the people, who in turn passed it on to the prophets, who passed it on to the men of the Great Assembly.” With this verse, the rabbis, that is, the men of the Great Assembly, created a chain of continuity that linked them directly to Moses, to whom at that time they had already added the title of Rabeinu, our rabbi, our teacher, thus trying to make him the origin of the rabbinic tradition. We are not surprised that the verse did not mention the kings and the priests, who were the main authority in the time of the two Temples. The fact that they were not included was a sign that leadership was passing from the traditional figures, the monarchs and the priestly class, to the houses of study, to the rabbis themselves.

By arguing that Revelation and Prophecy had ended, that God no longer spoke to anyone, the rabbis removed God from the stage of history and devoted themselves to interpreting His Message as expressed in the Holy Scriptures. They said that their interpretations of the Torah were not something new, but that Moses had received them at Sinai, in the form of what they called the Oral Torah and that it was transmitted from one sage to another. Jewish literary creation moved from the Bible, a book that narrated the history of the Jewish people, including the acts and presence of God, to another book, the Talmud, the Oral Torah, where new historical events were no longer narrated and therefore God no longer appeared and what was narrated were the rabbis’ comments on the texts of the Bible. In the Bible, God and the people of Israel are the main characters; in the Talmud, the rabbis are the main characters. Now, contact with God was indirect, through the rabbis who interpreted His Commandments.

Clearly, the change of leadership was due to the destruction of the Temple. It had functioned as the political and cult center of the people of Israel and when it was destroyed, the void left by the priests and kings was filled by the rabbis. Even the president of the Great Assembly, a rabbi elected by his colleagues, received the approval of the same Roman authorities, which made him the head, not only religiously, but also politically, of the People of Israel.

The destruction of the Temple in the year 70 and the failure of the Bar Kochba uprising 60 years later (132-135), was a devastating event for the Jewish People. The Roman response to the Jewish rebellion was tremendous. They wanted to wipe Judaism off the face of the earth. The rabbis knew that the Jewish people did not have the military, political, or economic strength to confront the greatest power of that time. The only thing that could save them was to turn them into something different. They replaced the Temple, the priests, and the sacrifices with the synagogue, the study of the Torah, prayer, and mitzvoth. The solution was a new Judaism, Rabbinic Judaism.

By Marcos Gojman.

Bibliography; “Jewish Culture in Greco Roman Palestine” by Eric M. Meyers, part of the book “Cultures of the Jews,” edited by David Biale.

The Talmud tells us in several places (Bava Batra 54b, Nedarim 28a, Gitin 10b, Bava Kama 113a and Bava Batra 55a) dina de-malchuta dina, that the law of the land is also the law for the Jews, as long as it does not force the Jews to go against Halacha. In this sense, one as a Jew must respect red lights, not speed, and pay taxes correctly, and observing Halacha, Jewish Law, does not exempt one from these obligations.

This does not surprise most Jews and is rarely the subject of debate, even in most ultra-conservative groups, although it does occur in some Jewish communities of people who claim to be very religious or observant, while violating the laws of the country.

Of course, there are sometimes cases where we have a religious obligation not to obey the law of the land, for example when it has been forbidden to circumcise newborn boys or to slaughter animals according to the laws of shechita (kosher slaughter).

There are other instances where the law of the land is more permissive than Jewish law, such as freedom of speech. Jewish commandments do limit expression in very specific cases, especially if our words may harm or hurt another person (lashon hara).

There are also cases where the law of the land is stricter than the Jewish law. For example, Jewish law does not prohibit discrimination in employment and stipulates different treatment of a Jewish servant than a non-Jew. The law in many countries upholds non-discrimination in matters of employment.

Dina de-malchuta dina, the law of the land is the law, is a phrase attributed to the sage Samuel. According to Samuel, it is very clear that a Jew must obey the laws of the country where he resides unless the law directly contradicts a precept of Halacha. What does this mean? It means that being a law-abiding person is not only a civic obligation, but is also a religious obligation, as important as fulfilling the mitzvoth.

By Marcos Gojman

Bibliography: Article by Rabbi Michael Knopf.

Hillel and Shammai were two rabbis of the 1st century BCE who founded two rival schools of rabbinical thought. They are known as the House of Hillel and the House of Shammai. The debate that took place between the two was critical to the formation of the Talmud and Judaism as we know it today.

In general, the House of Shammai held stricter views than the House of Hillel. Talmudic tradition lists over 350 controversies between Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel. The former was generally seen as a more intolerant school than the latter. Bet Hillel seemed to take more into account the needs and sensitivities of the people. (Tosefta Sukah 2:3 and BT Eruvin 13b.)

The rabbis in the Talmud generally sided with Bet Hillel, although the sages held that both views were valid. One famous difference between them was the position each school held regarding widows who could not conclusively prove that their husband had died. Hillel held that they could remarry even if they had only indirect proof of his death. Shammai required witnesses to provide direct proof of the death in order for the widow to be able to remarry.

Another difference was their position on whether or not to accept converts. Hillel favored accepting proselytes. even if they made absurd demands, such as learning Torah while standing on one foot (Al reguel ajat) while Shammai was more strict.

They also held different positions on the lighting of the Chanukah candles. Bet Shammai held that eight candles should be lit on the first day and one candle should be reduced each day, until only one candle was lit on the last day. Hillel said that it should be done exactly the other way around: start with one and end with eight candles. Hillel’s argument was that the sacred should grow and not diminish. (BT Shabbat 21b). The texts also tell us that Hillel said that a bride on her wedding day should be told that she looks beautiful even if this is not true and Shammai said that one should tell her the truth. (Talmud, Ketubot 16b-17a).

There is a beautiful metaphor in the Tosefta that describes the kind of religious sensitivity that the Talmud tries to foster: “Make for yourself a heart with many rooms and bring to it the words of the House of Shammai and the words of the House of Hillel, the words of those who declare it impure and those who declare it pure.” (Sotah 7:12). In other words, become a tolerant person.

Why did our sages leave both positions written in the Talmud, when they could have eliminated the less accepted one? Perhaps it was to teach us that no one has the absolute truth. That is why they included both points of view.

By Marcos Gojman from various sources.

In Breishit, the Torah presents us with two completely opposite reactions by Abraham when faced with two similar situations. The first is when God tells him that he is going to destroy the city of Sodom and Abraham argues with Him. Abraham questions him: “Should not the Judge of all the earth do what is right?” (Breishit 18:25). Abraham seems to be appealing to a moral principle generally accepted by men. He questioned God’s intentions without using “biblical quotes” or the commentary of some wise man. He did so with that intuitive sense of justice and love that neither man nor God could violate, and he also did so with humility and love for God: “And I dare to speak to my Lord, I who am only dust and ashes” (Breishit 18:27).

The second is when God asks Abraham to take his son Isaac to Moriah, to offer him as a sacrifice for Him. Without giving him any further explanation, much less justification, God orders Abraham to sacrifice his son, which also implies the cancellation of the promise that Abraham would be the father of a large people. After the incident in Sodom, one would have expected Abraham to beg God not to end the life of his son. But he does not do so, he does not ask for an explanation, much less a justification. His response is total submission and unconditional surrender.

The God of Abraham therefore takes two different forms in the book of Genesis. On the one hand, a God who demands total surrender to his commandments and on the other, a God who invites criticism and independent moral judgment. These two paradigms have permeated religious life and the interpretation of texts throughout Jewish history. For many teachers, from the time of the Talmud to the present day, the sacrifice of Isaac, the Akedah, has been the paradigm of their life and religious thought. For them, the survival and continuity of Jewish tradition requires unconditional surrender and total loyalty. To comply with God, one must be willing to sacrifice one’s own intellectual capacity and intuition, one must give up everything one knows and holds dear as a human being, in deference and obedience to the word of God.

More conservative circles within Judaism claim that the Akedah paradigm is their response to those who question religious practice and seek change, since according to them, religious life would lose credibility if submission and surrender were less than total. The belief that if you change one thing, everything falls apart, is derived from Abraham’s silence in the Akedah account.

But the other paradigm, that of Sodom, gives us another message: “Bring your own moral intuition, your subjective sense of dignity and justice, and use it to understand the reality of God.” Not only does this not threaten or undermine religious conscience, but on the contrary, it is necessary to understand the validity and applicability of the divine commandments. What do you choose: Sodom or the Akedah?

By Marcos Gojman

Bibliography: A Heart of Many Rooms, by David Hartman.

In one part of the Berachot tractate of the Talmud, the sages discuss until what time one may say the evening Shema. After many commentaries are presented, they finally conclude that one may say the evening Shema at the latest until midnight and not until before dawn. And what is the argument that leads them to this decision? The purpose of setting this specific limit is to “keep a person away from sin” (Kdei leharchik et haadam min hahabeira) and thus ensure that people will observe it correctly. And the text continues: “There is a teaching that says that the sages will make a fence to safeguard their words” (Hachamim asu sayag ledibreihem, Berachot 4b). This means that the halachic precepts must be so thought out and worded that they do not allow a person to fall into sin in any way. Before dawn, a person might miscalculate the time left and end up saying the Shema for the night when it is already daylight. If the limit is set at midnight, this risk is not run. Midnight gives us a wide margin.

This teaching of “creating a fence around the words of the sages” had very important implications. The enormous accumulation of halachic rules to make it practically impossible for a person to sin by not fulfilling them correctly has been taken to the extreme. A “Chumra” is a prohibition or obligation in the practice of Judaism that exceeds the minimum requirements set forth by Jewish law. “Chumrot” (plural of “Chumra”) can be adopted by an individual or by a community. They are found in Orthodox Judaism as a way to avoid transgressing a precept or as a way to distinguish oneself from other Orthodox groups.

The term “chumra” is also used when there are two or more different interpretations of the same point in the Talmud, and it is applied simply by choosing the stricter interpretation over the more lenient one. For example, in the 12th century, Rabbeinu Tam said that one could eat dishes of milk immediately after eating meat, simply by reciting a blessing and changing the tablecloth. Now, the most widely accepted halachic practice requires waiting at least an hour. Today’s practice is considered a “chumra” compared to what Rabbeinu Tam said.

In a certain sense, the Talmud, the Oral Torah, is that fence that protects the Written Torah. J. Israelstam, an English scholar, explains to us that: “The Torah is conceived as a garden and its commandments as precious plants, and a fence is erected to protect them.” Robert Frost in his poem “Mending Wall” says: “Before I build a wall, I want to know what I’m leaving in and what I’m leaving out and who I’m offending by doing so.” High walls isolate us from the outside world, they enclose us and don’t let us see what’s going on outside. Maybe there’s a new plant that would look great in our garden. That’s the problem with fences.

By Marcos Gojman

Bibliography: The Art Scroll edition of the Talmud and other sources.

The Torah tells us that we must celebrate three festivals in the year: Pesach, Shavuot and Sukkot (Leviticus 23). They are known as “Shalosh Regalim”, the three pilgrimages. The commandment said that every Jew in the land of Israel had to make a pilgrimage to the Temple in Jerusalem to present a sacrifice.

On Pesach, each family or group of people brought a lamb or goat to sacrifice in the Temple the night before the festival. Then the pilgrims went out to the courtyards of Jerusalem to roast the animal on a bonfire. While they ate it with Matza and bitter herbs, they told the story of the Exodus from Egypt. On Shavuot, the harvest festival, farmers would bring their first fruits, baskets of grain and fruit, and hand them to the priests, while reciting a litany thanking God for having brought the people of Israel out of the land of Egypt.

Sukkot, for its part, had become the most observed festival in the Temple. During the eight days it lasted, the priests would sacrifice seventy animals accompanied by their respective portion of grain mixed with oil and wine. On Sukkot, the Jews would arrive in Jerusalem with palm branches intertwined with willow and myrtle branches and carrying an etrog. They would wave all of this while saying “Hoshiana,” God save us. After the ceremony, they would give the etrog to children to eat. Since Sukkot fell in the fall, at the beginning of the rainy season, the priests would draw a jar of water from the Siloam spring in Jerusalem and pass it from hand to hand until it reached the Temple to be made into a libation. The ceremony was followed by a joyous party that lasted well into the night. The idea was to ask God for abundant rains for good harvests.

However, over time, the background of being agricultural festivals changed to something more spiritual. Pesach became the day to remember the departure from Egypt. Shavuot was related to the day that God spoke to Israel on Mount Sinai. And Sukkot was associated by the sages with the 40-year journey in the desert.

When the Romans destroyed the Temple, the festivities changed. Pesach was now observed with a ritual meal at home, without sacrificing the lamb. The important thing now was to tell the story of the Exodus. On Shavuot, the reception of the Torah was celebrated, and on Sukkot, the huts were built, which were normally used in the fields to gather the harvest, but were now used to remember the years in the desert, and palm branches were waved with the willow, myrtle, and etrog. Hoshiana prayers were now performed in synagogues. Sacrifices in the Temple had obviously been cancelled. The festivals without the Temple were no longer like the festivals with the Temple.

By Marcos Gojman

Bibliography: The Jews in the Time of Jesus by Rabbi Stephen M. Wylen.

The prophets Hagay, Zechariah, and Malachi lived in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. After them, there were no more prophets among the people of Israel. People wondered, “Why does God no longer speak to us through prophets as in biblical times?” Throughout the Second Temple era, people longed for the return of prophecy. They asked, “Why has God distanced himself from us? Where are the prophets?” Jewish literature of the Second Temple era consistently displayed a longing for prophecy.

From our historical perspective, it is easy to answer the question of why there are no more prophets. The acceptance of the Torah as Holy Scripture under Ezra the scribe brought prophecy to a sudden and irreversible end. A people and a religion cannot have both prophecy and scripture. One looks to a prophet to receive a new message from God. The Scriptures, for their part, claim to be the complete and only message of God. What would we do if a prophet contradicted the word of the Scriptures?

From the moment the Jews accepted the Torah as Scripture, the sage replaced the prophet. The sage was a scholar who knew the Torah and how to interpret it. God now spoke through the sage, instead of the prophet.

Malachi was the last of the prophets. He emerged after the time of Ezra the scribe. The third and final chapter of the book of Malachi represents the final farewell to biblical prophecy. Malachi announces a future that will be dominated by interpreters of the scriptures rather than by messengers of God. Malachi announces the Day of God as the one in which those who obey the commandments of the Creator will be vindicated. God’s message will come to us by interpreting the commandments of the Torah and not through the words of a prophet.

Zechariah and Malachi wrote in the question and answer format. Was this just a literary device? Or were the last prophets imitating the style of the sages, who receive a question and answer it with a studied response? We do not know. But we do know that this was the end of the prophets.

By Marcos Gojman

Bibliography: The Jews in the Time of Jesus by Rabbi Stephen M. Wylen.

After King Solomon’s death, the kingdom was divided into two: To the south, the kingdom of Judah continued under the dynasty of the House of David and to the north the kingdom of Israel which had several dynasties until the Assyrians destroyed it in 722 BCE. The kingdom of Judah lasted 136 more years until the Babylonians conquered it in 586 BCE, forcing most of its inhabitants to go into exile in Babylon itself.

By then, in Eretz Israel, the entire sacrificial ritual had already been centralized in the Temple of Jerusalem. The small altars were destroyed and the Jews became accustomed to the fact that they could only worship God in the Temple. This condition forced the Jews in Babylon to find new ways to serve God, as they could not make sacrifices in exile, although they did not lose hope of returning to Jerusalem and rebuilding the Temple.

The leaders of the Jewish people – the priests, royalty and nobility, wise men and elders – had been exiled to Babylon. It was their task to preserve identity and religion with new rituals and rules of observance. Reading the Torah was one of those new ways.

The prophet Jeremiah said that the exile would only last 70 years. Around 539 BCE, Cyrus the Persian emperor conquered Babylon and encouraged the Jews to return to Judah and reestablish the worship of God. Still, many stayed in Babylon where they felt at home. Some returned to Judah, including the priests who hoped to rebuild the Temple and with it their livelihood. In 515 BCE the Temple was rebuilt in a modest manner, though over the years it was improved til it surpassed the first in beauty.

Ezra and Nehemiah were the two great leaders who led the rebuilding of Judah. ​​Nehemiah was an officer in the Persian government, who asked permission to return to Judah and rebuild the country. His request was granted and he rebuilt the walls, established an honest government and defeated his enemies, especially the Samaritans. Ezra was a priest, a religious leader. He returned from Babylon with the mandate of reestablishing religious worship. He imposed very strict rules for observing the Sabbath, just as the Jews already did in Babylon, where observing the Sabbath was central to the religious ritual. He was the one who introduced the reading of the Torah on the holidays. On his first Rosh Hashanah he read from the Torah, as it is written in chapter 8 of the book of Nehemiah: “Ezra blessed God and everyone answered amen, and he read from God in the Torah scroll, translating it and giving it meaning so that the people could understand what was being read.”

Reading the Torah in public is the last event narrated in the Bible. The Jews of biblical times did not have a Bible, as they themselves were the actors in the biblical narratives. Their stories would eventually become the Bible. When the Bible was canonized, the Jews ceased to live in biblical times. The Bible went from being an era to a book.

By Marcos Gojman

Bibliography: The Jews in the Time of Jesus by Rabbi Stephen M. Wylen.

Many contemporary readers of the Torah are frustrated because they have been exposed to a method of interpreting the Bible that takes the texts literally. So if Breishit says that God created woman from the rib of man, or if it says that the serpent spoke, or that this old man lived a few hundred years, those who take it literally interpret the story to be exactly what the words of the text say. And that literal understanding, they apply it to all the words and phrases in the Bible.

Aside from the fact that the Bible text that is commonly used may be one of several versions available and that many who read it use translations, since they do not know the original Hebrew, contemporary readers must understand that reading the Torah literally, can lead to misconceptions.

Even the ancient rabbis, who believed that the Torah was given to us by God, did not take the text literally. They took it seriously, but they always looked for something more than its literal meaning. They realized that the Bible was full of subtle metaphors and allusions, that there were wordplay and other literary devices, that sometimes they spoke satirically, and that their poetry could not be subject to a single interpretation. They also agreed, without fear of being wrong, that scholars could disagree among themselves when dealing with the meaning of some part of the Torah.

When reading the Torah we must keep in mind that what the author said in his time to his contemporaries, within his own intellectual frame of reference, is one thing and what later generations did with the text, those who contributed their commentaries and sermons, is another. This long tradition of understanding the Book as a prism, discovering through its facets a great spectrum of ideas, makes the Torah a unique work.

The Torah, in addition to its original meaning and the interpretations that have arisen over the centuries, also has relevance in our days. For example, the story of the Tower of Babel, which for many years was interpreted as an example of human arrogance, today warns us of the dehumanizing effects of urban life.

What is important about the Torah is, more than in the stories it tells us, in the questions it leaves unanswered. This way of not telling us the ending, of leaving it open, of not giving us a single answer, is the door that remains open for future generations who will hear those same words in a different way and will also answer in a different way. But you can be sure that it will not be in a literal way.

By Marcos Gojman

Bibliography: The Torah, a Modern Commentary, from a text by W. Gunther Plaut.